Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[Icebound]

...

Harper, Enbridge, and the petroleum industry would have had a lot easier ride, had they not spent the last 8 years digging their heels in against environmental protection and against the science of climate change.

So now, no matter what Harper may say, the environmentalists will take their own turn digging in THEIR heels against Harper.

Strangely, the pipeline is a lot more likely to be built under a LIBERAL or NDP government, ...if it makes economic sense.... just because of their better relationship with environmentalists.

...

[Boges]

Strangely, the pipeline is a lot more likely to be built under a LIBERAL or NDP government, ...if it makes economic sense.... just because of their better relationship with environmentalists.

Which is why I characterize the opposition to this pipeline as "Just Cuz".

Of course JT and Mailman Mulclair say they would scrap the pipeline. Pure Wedge issue, if I've ever heard one.

[waldo]

You just strawmaned me two posts ago and I explained why...

And I provided a lot of evidence explaining why increasing atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth, including: references to greenhouse studies that verify that increasing CO2 increases plant growth (up to about 1500 ppm), references to guides that explain the optimal conditions to grow plants like marijuana in greenhouses, references to plant growth in the past few thousand or tens of thousands of years and it's relationship to CO2 levels and how that was inferred based on tree ring data and fossilized pollen data, references & citations to many scientific articles (even ones that you provided) that state this well known fact, references to the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants and why it evolved recently due to historically low CO2 levels compared to the majority of the past 600 million years during which multi-cellular life on earth has flourished, etc. And if you had even a high school level education you would freakin know the reason for this has to do with the basic chemistry of the photosynthesis reaction: 6C0₂ + 6H₂0 -> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂.

if you'd like to take this up again, resurrect the thread... and be prepared to finally provide support for your claims... something in the real world; something that gets you out from the confines of non-real world, artificial, tailored greenhouse environments - you know, like the studies/cites that I provided. Something that you've failed to provide; something that you've refused to provide.

.

I am for all pipelines that can be shown to be of net benefit to Canada through the methodology of a cost benefit analysis, yes.

And yes I also think, and have explained why in great detail, that global warming alarmism is nonsense and such beliefs result in harmful decisions.

What is your point here?

I already told you my point when you asked the first time... are you deef man!

.

[jacee]

No one is going to stop Alberta from taking that Bittumen from ground. I'm pretty sure JT won't. So we'll just have to have the stuff shipped by rail and risk more Lac Megantics, I suppose.

OoOoo ... you're scaring us!

I'm pretty sure one or two of these 200 PLUS!!!! conditions would have environmental risks minimized.

Yes they would ... and it remains to be seen whether Enbridge is up to the task of minimizing risks and negotiating agreements with communities along the route. Until we see what they're offering, it's way too early to predict, threaten or catastrophize.

Also without potential customers abroad, our economy would suffer a lot.

This Isolationism is unbecoming of Canadians.

OoOoo ... the scary bogeyman again!

Let's let the process play out.

I think Enbridge has better ideas than you about how to approach communities.

You see, insulting people and threatening catastrophe works against your purpose, angers people and solidifies opposition to the pipeline.

Hmm ... maybe that's what you and hitops are trying to do!

You sly dogs!

Edited June 18, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

Hold on, you're accusing supporters of the pipeline of fear mongering? That's slightly ironic.

You seem to have the reasonable position that we should wait and see if Enbridge can meet the requirements.

Unlike those who criticize the PM for approving the pipeline, conditions or not. Or those that are obstructing the process with endless court cases.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

You climate alarmists and your continual inability to comprehend that there are more than 2 positions on the issue of climate change (denialism and alarmism) amuse me.

oh for sure! There's also the fake-skeptic position (aka cloaked denialism)... and, of course, there's the concern troll position that feigns concern while also trumpeting other accompanying positions like "do nothing/delay any action/there's nothing that we can do about it/adapt only/mitigation is a waste of money/the benefits of CO2 outweigh negative impacts, blah, blah, blah".

[Shady]

oh for sure! There's also the fake-skeptic position (aka cloaked denialism)... and, of course, there's the concern troll position that feigns concern while also trumpeting other accompanying positions like "do nothing/delay any action/there's nothing that we can do about it/adapt only/mitigation is a waste of money/the benefits of CO2 outweigh negative impacts, blah, blah, blah".

This issue, as with Keystone, has nothing to do with climate change. Nothing.

[Boges]

I think if people are truly worried about climate change, a better tactic would be to work to find alternatives to fossil fuels then expending so much time and effort just trying to pick and choose which methods of fossil fuel extraction they don't approve of.

I'm sure all these First Nations Groups need fossil fuels to transport resources out to the remote parts of the nation they live in. It's not like they're living the Agenda 21 lifestyle or anything.

No one wants to call for a boycott of Middle-eastern oil or want to go protest oil from other parts of the world. It's so much easier to protest domestic forms of fossil fuels.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

...

Harper, Enbridge, and the petroleum industry would have had a lot easier ride, had they not spent the last 8 years digging their heels in against environmental protection and against the science of climate change.

So now, no matter what Harper may say, the environmentalists will take their own turn digging in THEIR heels against Harper.

Strangely, the pipeline is a lot more likely to be built under a LIBERAL or NDP government, ...if it makes economic sense.... just because of their better relationship with environmentalists.

...

clearly... if Harper Conservatives had taken emissions seriously, moved aggresively to incorporate carbon capture research/deployment in tarsands development, forged positive relationships with those holding environmental interests, accepted a more restrictive sustainable development path for the tarsands, developed a cooperative national-provincial energy plan, etc. .... there probably would have been a U.S. approval of the KXL pipeline by now, possibly making Northern Gateway a moot point.

[jacee]

Hold on, you're accusing supporters of the pipeline of fear mongering? That's slightly ironic.

That's what you were doing.

You seem to have the reasonable position that we should wait and see if Enbridge can meet the requirements.

Yes ... Not up to me, but the people in the path of the pipeline/tankers.

Enbridge knows it's unlikely to be successful:

"If we can't prove our safety and environmental protection, the economic benefits won't matter," Monaco said. "In other words, the economic benefits alone are not enough to sustain public support."

And I'm not too worried because I believe Environmental Defence has it right:

These conditions cannot be met - an approval with conditions is as good as a no.

Unlike those who criticize the PM for approving the pipeline, conditions or not. Or those that are obstructing the process with endless court cases.

Ridiculous complaint:

Of course there will be court cases. That is all part of the process of Enbridge having to face, and likely failing to meet the conditions of community support along the route. People have a right to whatever opposition they can muster. Don't you agree?

Isn't this a democracy?

Why on earth would you suggest that using the courts is out of line?

Ridiculous!

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

Environmentalists will oppose this pipeline, "Just cuz" even if all safety precautions are taken.

I guess ultimately it's up to Christy Clarke to give her blessing.

But I'm pretty sure the lobbyists are well on their way to painting this project as a net benefit to BC. We'll see what happens.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

This issue, as with Keystone, has nothing to do with climate change. Nothing.

duh! It has everything to do with GW/CC - see unfettered, no holds barred, full speed ahead, throttle wide open tarsands development... and what that means for extending a world-wide reliance on fossil-fuels, for negatively influencing alternative energy pursuits, etc.. You do know those pipelines are for export right - yes?

but do tell, don't tease, to you what "does it have to do with"?

[waldo]

Environmentalists will oppose this pipeline, "Just cuz" even if all safety precautions are taken.

just cuz? Is it just a pipeline... or an enabler? It's quite rich that all the pro-Northern Gateway talking head types that came forward yesterday, that I heard/read, never mentioned anything but the pipeline... never mentioned the port/tankers... never mentioned the tarsands. It's also quite telling that not a single Harper Conservative came forward yesterday after the announcement to face the media questions - not one!

[Shady]

duh! It has everything to do with GW/CC - see unfettered, no holds barred, full speed ahead, throttle wide open tarsands development... and what that means for extending a world-wide reliance on fossil-fuels, for negatively influencing alternative energy pursuits, etc.. You do know those pipelines are for export right - yes?but do tell, don't tease, to you what "does it have to do with"?

My hose against Keystone and this project are actually on the side of more CO2 in the atmosphere. Shipping by rail and truck are much much worse for the environment in many ways. A responsible position would be to ask for portions of the revenue of this project to the government be used on research of new technologies for new or alternative energy sources. But it's not. It's a one-sided, all or nothing, view point that's completely politically unmanageable. It's almost as though compromise is a dirty word to you people.

[PIK]

If you live along the coastline of BC, it becomes your home. It is our home. Our economy relies on a clean environment free of toxic oil spills that could undermine the entire province of BC. Not everyone in Canada has equal say in what happens.

The protests against this will be many many many times above the protests of the Clayoquot protests. We now have soccer moms, dads, officer workers, the average british columbian, most first nations people. This battle has just started.

If we want a pipeline in BC we will put one there. It is time to put our foot down hard on these people that want to keep Canada in the dark. A lot of natives work in the oil fields and a lot of bands want it also. The natives against it ,I would like a investigation where their money is coming from to fight it. And if it is foreign money, them maybe transfer payments to those bands should be ended. I live a couple miles from a pipeline and never a problem and when it came thru the whole area benefitted big time. Time to get this country working again and it is time for Canadians to stand up against this foreign interference.

[PIK]

duh! It has everything to do with GW/CC - see unfettered, no holds barred, full speed ahead, throttle wide open tarsands development... and what that means for extending a world-wide reliance on fossil-fuels, for negatively influencing alternative energy pursuits, etc.. You do know those pipelines are for export right - yes?

but do tell, don't tease, to you what "does it have to do with"?

This post is nothing but fear mongering BS.What we produce does very little to the enviro. But then why are all these kooks not protesting in china ,where the real problems lie?

[Boges]

just cuz? Is it just a pipeline... or an enabler? It's quite rich that all the pro-Northern Gateway talking head types that came forward yesterday, that I heard/read, never mentioned anything but the pipeline... never mentioned the port/tankers... never mentioned the tarsands. It's also quite telling that not a single Harper Conservative came forward yesterday after the announcement to face the media questions - not one!

Because those Tankers will be taking Oil to X location regardless and the Tarsands will be producing Oil regardless. What's at issues is the transportation method.

The dude on CBC (I was actually watching the National for some reason) yesterday said the Government wanted their statement to stand for itself. Control the message I suppose. I'm sure the opposition will have ample opportunity to ask all the questions they want in due time.

[waldo]

My hose against Keystone and this project are actually on the side of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

you don't know what you're talking about! This rail vs pipeline emissions comparison is a false front... the real emissions come in the downstream burning of the oil... and the further longer-term fossil-fuel dependency it encourages for other countries, with an accompaniment that negatively influences alternative energy pursuits within those countries.

[kimmy]

Now get ready for years of natives in costume beating tom-toms and chanting outside of legislative buildings, talking about their "traditions" being under attack, and playing this "faithful conservators of the land" role they play whenever they want their palms greased by any resources project.

-k

[waldo]

This post is nothing but fear mongering BS.What we produce does very little to the enviro. But then why are all these kooks not protesting in china ,where the real problems lie?

you have no idea! The "what we produce" side of the emissions equation isn't the key/significant factor... it's the use of "what we produce" that generates the more/most signficant emissions, while perpetuating a longer-term reliance on "what we produce".

kooks??? Who are your kooks? Cause there are a lot of people/organizations focused on world-wide emissions reduction. You target China while ignoring it is the key target market for Northern Gateway - oh the irony!

[jacee]

Environmentalists will oppose this pipeline, "Just cuz" even if all safety precautions are taken.

Probably wise.

Enbridge's safety record speaks for itself.

Using data from Enbridge's own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 161,475 barrels (25,672.5 m3) of crude oil into the environment.[12]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge#Spills_and_violations

I guess ultimately it's up to Christy Clarke to give her blessing.

But I'm pretty sure the lobbyists are well on their way to painting this project as a net benefit to BC. We'll see what happens.

And I'm pretty sure Christy Clarke has to pay attention to the courts and communities.

.

[waldo]

Because those Tankers will be taking Oil to X location regardless and the Tarsands will be producing Oil regardless. What's at issues is the transportation method.

it's all about margins... as in rail vs. pipeline... as in actual tarsands development - see Total's (and partners) recent announcement shutting down their tarsands expansion.

[waldo]

Now get ready for years of natives in costume beating tom-toms and chanting outside of legislative buildings, talking about their "traditions" being under attack, and playing this "faithful conservators of the land" role they play whenever they want their palms greased by any resources project.

there seem to be some native groups already lined up... as signatories to the development... I don't believe they had to "costume up"! Of course, there are also native groups against the development - it's a shame you appear so jaded as to not consider any of their concerns as genuine.

[waldo]

If we want a pipeline in BC we will put one there.

who is "we" partner?

[Boges]

there seem to be some native groups already lined up... as signatories to the development... I don't believe they had to "costume up"! Of course, there are also native groups against the development - it's a shame you appear so jaded as to not consider any of their concerns as genuine.

Who's paying them more? Tides or the Government.